Then why are other language articles completely different? Have you gone and checked? Are all the other articles just wrong? Why is the "consensus" for the gamergate article citing direct primary sources that were involved and attacked by gamergate instead of reliable and impartial secondary sources? Nobody has even bothered addressing any of questions or points i brought up yet. Because they break the narrative.

The way the article is written is arguably biased and irrational on it's face, when reading it you should get the feeling of something being amiss and information being excluded. Sometimes you can just tell when writing is biased based on the language, it's a pattern that's good to learn.

I think their comment is fair.

Wikipedias policies to promote neutrality are often counter productive.

Because neutrality is hard to define, what these policies actually do is progressively raise the effort required to keep or remove a particular point of view. Unfortunately, requiring more effort also means substituting the point of view of knowledgeable but time poor and inexperienced contributors, with the point of view of time rich chronic contributors and admins. The result is that instead of neutrality, you actually select for the strongest held points of view of a small ingroup of chronic users. The viewpoint diversity of such users is extremely low, which is why you’ll notice all controversial topics tend to lean a certain way.

Communists no, young progressives yes. It's kind of insane to believe that a majority audience of gamers in the year 2014 would be anything but progressive, at least until the entire media turned on them and orchestrated a misinformation campaign out of a combination of a core of malice then a majority of laziness.

Gamergate folks are incredibly silent about other “ethics in Journalism” issues…

Same with all those “free speech wing of the free speech party” folks.

You mean you watched people writing misinformation articles smearing people in realtime, or were you actually on the hubs where gamergate was organized? There is a big difference between these things, and no there were not people organizing for "misogyny campaigns" the discussion was 99% corruption and ethics focused. Especially in gaming circles of 2014 which were very progressive.

Quite frankly i find people who think there were actually some kind of organized misogyny campaigns in 2014 to be a form of insane, like something breaks inside a person because they need a bogeyman so badly that it becomes a core of their being even though it's incredibly irrational. At the time journalists would just take random twitter people who weren't affiliated with gamergate and hold them up as if they represented the movement. Reminds of me the tactics used against occupy wall street honestly. It's not a rational or reasonable belief.